Re: [ga] Older registrations

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Wow. Someone actually read my paper. Thanks.

> Um... thanks, but I've definitely been misquoted. I think I have to put a
> hit out on you now... ;-p
> 
> RE: (This quote awaits verification)

That quote was from someone else's (mis)characterization of your explanation
about why you rejected the appointment. I knew strong second hand stuff like
that needs verification, (which I pursued from you couple of years ago, you may
recall). The changes are uploaded.

I'd be very happy to get a copy of your Eudora files if you're willing to dig
them out. I'm primarily interested in knowing who was involved in that
discourse, but its always interesting to read through some of the older stuff.
People seemed so much more civil back then.

I think what you're saying about the famous envelope is that it was your
understanding that this involved the start of an application process with no
guarantee of a TLD delegation. By the way, Ambler told me that Manning had
refused to take a check once that day before relenting. Now I hear you saying
that Manning had offered an after-the-fact rationale for what he was doing.
Plausible and very interesting.

I had never heard before that Eugene Kashpureff was Postel's "grand experiment."
I did know there was very bad blood early on between Kashpureff and Vixie. What
do you think was the first instance of the transition from his being a chosen
one to being labeled an agent of the dark side?

The notion that the process was "taken away" also seems like a crucial way of
expressing the emotion that some folks bring to this issue. I'm sure that others
would insist on the exact opposite view, which is that there was direct
continuity through the hole thing, in the person of Jon and the consensus of the
"Internet community."  You know that I've always argued that both sides are
inspired by a mix of material and ideological interests. I think you make the
case for status preservation clear enough.

And with reference to cavalier actions by the USG, yes of course it was fair to
remove the burden from the US taxpayer by introducing a payment scheme, but I
think people should be aware of Karl Auerbach's point that the contract should
have been rebid rather than simply changed so dramatically by such a small group
of players. (And who has the inside details on that pivotal element of the
story?)

One of the most profound utterances to emerge from the Dilbert strip is when the
boss said, "I've decided to abandon logic and live by cliches." I'm always
fascinated to see what kind of cliches people trot out to justify actions that
are materially beneficial to themselves. We all do it. We say we're looking for
rules to follow when we're actually making them.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Craig Simon
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html